Posted
by
samzenpus
on Sunday February 17, 2013 @03:00PM
from the if-you-don't-have-anything-nice-to-say dept.

McGruber writes "The Chronicle of Higher Education has the news that Herbert Richardson, founder of Edwin Mellen Press is suing McMaster University and University Librarian Dale Askey for $3 Million over Mr. Askey's posts on a personal blog. In 2010 Mr. Askey wrote a blog post about Edwin Mellen Press on his personal Web site, Bibliobrary. Mr. Askey referred to the publisher as 'dubious' and said its books were often works of 'second-class scholarship.' For a few months afterward, several people chimed in in the blog's comments section, some agreeing with Mr. Askey, others arguing in support of the publisher. In a February 11 statement, the McMaster University Faculty Association (MUFA) stated that The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) 'and the MUFA Executive agree that this case represents a serious threat to the freedom of academic librarians (pdf) to voice their professional judgement and to academic freedom more generally.'"

The publisher's problem is that this isn't some nut-job that can just be dismissed out of hand. Dale Askey appears to have the qualifications to know exactly what he's talking about here so they have to try and shut him up. But suing McMaster University over the personal blog of one of their employees personal blog opinions is way beyond reasonable -- although that's probably either were the money is, or that they hope to punish Mr. Askey by getting the university to fire him as him being too much trouble to keep onboard.

Under all circumstances the publisher is wrong here. The proper course of action would have been for them to line up equally (apparently) qualified academicians on their side of the argument and let the book-buying institutions decide for themselves. It would seem that both sides of the argument were already being hashed out on the blog, and now arrives The Streisand Effect in spades!

The proper course of action would have been for them to line up equally (apparently) qualified academicians on their side of the argument and let the book-buying institutions decide for themselves. It would seem that both sides of the argument were already being hashed out on the blog, and now arrives The Streisand Effect in spades!

It would appear that this company's reputation is already well pretty [sspnet.org].
well [wikipedia.org]
established [www.slaw.ca]

The nicest thing I have seen so far are the comments that say it is just one step above a vanity press.

Librarians as a group tend to have pretty strong feelings about this sort of thing. If this publisher thought the blog post of one librarian might turn other librarians against them, they haven't seen anything like what this lawsuit will do.

I would think if were a Head Liberarian, that simply avoiding Edwin Mellen Press products, would avoid imperiling my institution. My libarians wouldn't be able to critique Edwin Mellen Press, if they didn't have any.

I would think if were a Head Liberarian, that simply avoiding Edwin Mellen Press products, would avoid imperiling my institution. My libarians wouldn't be able to critique Edwin Mellen Press, if they didn't have any.

And the moment that a request came in from a library user for a book published by $PUBLISHER$... your attempt at escaping controversy fails.

This definitely looks like a SLAPP suit to me. They may be able to sue for libel but the last time I checked a claim is not libel (no matter how damaging it is) if it's 100% true. Askey could probably beat this if he can document and prove his claims with real evidence.

Another thing to consider are the dates. If the incident happened back in 2010, why is Edwin Mellen Press waiting until now (2.5 - 3 years later) to sue? If I had to guess, I would say that the statute of limitations is coming up (not sure how long it is in Canada but in the states 3-5 years is typical) and the plaintiff is getting the lawsuit pushed through while they still can. IANAL but I've seen stuff like this before. The very late timing appears to weaken the validity of Richardson's case against A

This is Canada. Such a suit would likely never have been filed in the states. although anti-SLAPP does vary from state to state, US defamation law is generally far more defendant friendly. The onus is reversed and there has never been something like NYT v. Sullivan in Canada so far as I know.

"This is Canada. Such a suit would likely never have been filed in the states."

I'm surprised that pleadings in Canada can be so lacking... No plaintiff's address.. how does one respond? No jurisdiction/venue claim(improperly assumed), etc..

Askey and McMaster University should immediately file a dismissal motion for lack of Jurisdiction [wikipedia.org] since the publication occurred while the defendant was residing/working in the state of Kansas, USA. I.E The claimed tort occurred well outside the province the court

The prior poster was referring to the fictional Librarian of the Unseen University in Ankh Mor-pork on the Discworld in novels written by Terry Pratchett. People don't criticize him as he tends to rip off their arms and or head.

The prior poster was referring to the fictional Librarian of the Unseen University in Ankh Mor-pork on the Discworld in novels written by Terry Pratchett. People don't criticize him as he tends to rip off their arms and or head.

The prior poster was referring to the fictional Librarian of the Unseen University in Ankh Mor-pork on the Discworld in novels written by Terry Pratchett. People don't criticize him as he tends to rip off their arms and or head.

And for the love of the gods, don't use the "m" word....Nice monkey....Oh S**t!

Not only does this attempt to suppress free speech by means of the court, but it also treats the man like a serf. They sue the university (i.e. the employer or, in their view, the master) knowing that even if their suit isn't successful new policies will arise limiting employees' ability to have personal websites. The Servile State [wikipedia.org] is as relevant as ever.

OTOH, it's the employer that gives the man his credentials and thus soapbox for being an authority on publishers. Look how he's identified in the headline.

Yes, I quite agree the lawsuit is repugnant. If it gets any traction in the courts (even as a threat) then we have to look at rewriting our laws. But that doesn't mean the employer is irrelevant here. It's not the same as "Publisher Sues Auto Worker Over His Personal Blog Post."

Hopefully McMaster will see this as good opportunity for headlining their repu

Which is precisely why Richardson went after Askey's means of producing food on his table instead. It's the beauty of western democracy: everyone has a voice and those who are independently wealthy can actually afford to use theirs.

Yeah, you know, I get really sick and tired of hearing all the horseshit Canadian Slashdot users trot out and flaunt in front of us whenever the US is so stupid and evil and screwed up and crap (not that they're wrong).

You do know that Edwin Mellen Press is American, right? American bloggers would be too frightened by the possibility of a lawsuit to publish their true opinion. You've got to go north to find the land of the free these days.

Ours is very like the US's definition, with the same prohibitions on extreme misuse, such as inciting a riot or shouting fire in a crowded theatre. We differ only on edge cases, like inciting lesser crimes. We're in complete agreement on the librarian's rigfht to state an opinion or cite a fact.

Yup, but the librarian in question didn't stick to safe subjects like race, religion or colour (:-))

--dave
[In case people haven't been following Canadian politics, there's a real debate ongoing in Canada about when merely racist/sexist/religious language turns into inciting attacks on people who are the wrong race, colour or religion. See "Ezra Levant" on Wikipedia if you want an activist and libertarian position on the debate]

Like actual violence only? Or are stories like [catholiceducation.org] this [christianconcern.com] false? Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with religious conservatives on this issue. But Canada's reputation is of being a country where one can be civilly liable for expressing politically incorrect opinions, and if so, that's pretty fucking far from free speech.

I do not know much about defamation law in other countries, but in the US there would be no valid case. The statements are derogatory, but are opinions and not facts. Only provably false statements of fact can give rise to an action for defamation in the United States. Of course anyone can always try to sue for anything, but the plaintiff here would lose quickly and probably face a judgment for costs and fees for filing a case unsupported by law (Rule 11).

it's more nuanced than that. Accidental is probably not what you're thinking of. What I think you're trying to refer to is called Actual Malice and this comes into play only when discussing public figures (or limited purpose public figures) on a matter of public interest. Otherwise, the plaintiff does not need to prove reckless disregard for the truth (which has it's own tests).

I do not know much about defamation law in other countries, but in the US there would be no valid case. The statements are derogatory, but are opinions and not facts.... the plaintiff here would lose quickly

This, of course, assumes that the University would go to fight
In US they can (and often do, right or wrong!) choose to settle instead and institute new policies limiting what employees can blog on the next day.

Even in US, I am afraid this would not get tossed out of court automatically. Someone would have to stand and fight at a significant expense.

Depends on the state, and whether the matter is covered by anti-SLAPP legislation. California is quite good, for example. I was sued there and my lawyers took the case on a partial contingent fee basis. Didn't cost me a penny in the end. Cost the other guy over half a million. It's not all bad, and even the worst state is better than anywhere else in the world, and I've lived in quite a few places.

While there was indeed no valid case, that didn't keep Edwin Mellen Press from suing the American magazine Linga Franca in New York state court over a 1993 article where they called it a "vanity press". The case was eventually dismissed in 1998 [google.com] after a series of appeals.

Opinion can be fact or taken as fact. An accident scene interpreter gives opinion that is treated as fact. Expert witnesses give opinion that is considered fact.

In this case, the guy's standing and position could lead his opinion as being accepted as fact by most who viewed it. This is probably why the school was brought into the suit. Random guy rambling is obvious opinion. Specific guy who works in a specific field at a specific place rambling about his field of expertise creates fact.

The US is pretty unique in that regard. In many other places, even demonstrably true statements can be libelous. And while in the US, these are merely civil matters, in other nations, libel, defamation, and slander are often criminal matters.

Perhaps, but more likely it was modded down for being painfully obvious. Redundant would be better than off topic, of course, as the point is already made as the story is posted to Slashdot, but this tiresome meme regurgitation has to be struck down.

I work for a small academic publisher and I've seen the Edwin Mellen press at some academic conventions. Nice people, but they totally come across as carnival hucksters. They get their business knowing full well how important "publish or perish" is in academia. Their reps will literally ask every single person who walks by in the exhibit hall: "Do you want to get published?" (including me, on multiple occasions, wearing my vendor badge!) They basically make their money from minimal production values (look at their covers or insides of their books to see what I mean), small print runs, and very high prices. They sell a limited number of books to libraries, to the author, and maybe a handful elsewhere, and then they're done. They claim to be subsidy-free (i.e., not a vanity press) but I don't know if this is true or not.

For instance, the publisher could start a blog in which they call the librarian "Mr. Poopy Pants".

That is essentially the equivalent of what he did to them.

If I think that some publisher's output is poor, that is my opinion. It is not libel. You can't sue people for having standards (even completely vague ones that change daily) and for claiming that some things don't measure up to those standard (in no objective way).

Libel would be if I claim that, say, the publisher cheated someone out of ten thousand dollars, when in fact that is false.

Most textbooks are second, third or ass wipe class resources. Out of the 14+ textbooks I have, and out of the 100 I've read, maybe 2 of them are worth any money and out of those two, only the embedded software textbook is worth over $20. Textbooks are by far the worst way to learn / educate a student! Instead of suing the blogger maybe textbook publishers should sit back and finally ask "How do make a learning resource that works!", One thing is for sure it's not following the current methods.

"Learning Resource?" It's a book, not a nontransferable software license. But we're getting off topic-- Mellon press appears to publish monographs [wikipedia.org], not textbooks. If they're good enough, you can cite them in your research papers.

Absolutely. If the academic content of a textbook mattered, evolution would apply, and very quickly "survival of the fittest" would mean each area of teaching would recognise only a couple of first class works, and ensure only these books gained a recommendation.

Sadly, 80%+ of teaching is NOT about getting a person to learn something productive. It is simply a process to keep young people out of the job market until they are older and older (we've gone from 12 to 22 and rising), and then to ensure they are

So just out of curiosity I went to their website. On a poorly presented front page they advertise themselves not to potentials readers (i.e. customers) but to academics desparate to get a book "out there" for career purposes. One of their selling points is "Our books qualify for tenure promotion," for example. Reputable publishing houses do not have to advertise in that manner to potentials authors because their reputation means that they have many more inquiries from new authors than they could possibly ac

This also involves free speech. I believe the university and the librarian should counter sue, claiming the publisher is trying to suppress their free speech rights. They should ask for millions of dollars in damages and Billions in punitave damage.

And Mr. Askey was not even a librarian at McMaster when he posted on the blog. He was still an associate professor at Kansas State University, working in Hale Library, he said. He started working at McMaster in February 2011.

Judge: "Okay, published in USA by an American; I have no jurisdiction."

That - coupled with a grossly Byzantine case-law system that seems to directly-reward $$ paid to platoons of attorneys - has really left us a broken system.

The problem is one of a level playing field, in both directions.On the one hand, we want our legal system to be accessible to anyone; this allows the impoverished parents of the kid that was crippled by defective playground equipment to sue Giant Mega Playground Corp despite their sub-povert

Institutions of higher learning across country should issue a joint statement banning that publisher's books from being sold in on-campus bookstores (new or used) or being required material in any course.

They're against academic freedom, they can kiss academic support goodbye, right?